Why I Am a Dispensationalist
I was reared in a conservative Lutheran church and school where dispensationalism was a term of derision and began life as a most unlikely candidate to become a teacher of dispensational theology. Today, however, I am deeply committed to classical dispensationalism and feel so strongly about this position that it affects every aspect of my belief and practice. Why am I now a dispensationalist? I offer seven introductory reasons.
1. Dispensationalism understands the relevance of the entirety of Scripture.
Teachers in the denomination I grew up in employed several catch phrases when they came to difficult prophetic sections of Scripture. They would speak of “closing the Book” or talk of passages like Daniel 7-12 or Revelation 4-20 being “filled with mystery.” Preterists and other non-dispensationalists also cloud such portions of Scripture by speaking of them in terms of “apocalyptic language” which is incapable of clear, systematic interpretation (especially futurist) and fulfillment.
Dispensationalists recognize that the symbols in these difficult passages are actually meant to shed light on real people and events (see Rev. 22:10; cf. Deut. 29:29, Prov. 25:2) in the same way inspired writers used devices to communicate in non-prophetic writing . Dispensationalists relish unearthing the meaning of obscure passages which may be understood only in the light of clearer (often later) revelation.
The dispensationalism I have known is not given to wild sensationalism, but rather compels the student to master the Scriptures (in their original languages, if possible) so that he or she may fully develop all that the Scriptures contain. From the dispensationalist’s vantage point, the task will never be complete this side of glory.
2. Dispensationalism employs consistent literal interpretation.
Seeing distinctions between the church and Israel, dispensationalism rightly promotes a glorious future for both. Confusing these two peoples of God has resulted in much mischief throughout church history. Conversely, when the church is understood as a New Testament mystery (Eph. 3:1-12) which began at Pentecost, the free church model and the Baptist distinctives become plainly evident.
The distinction between the church and Israel is one of the firstfruits of literal interpretation. This coincides with a proper understanding of progressive revelation, normally interpreting later revelation on the basis of that which came earlier.
In Michael Vlach’s words,
Dispensationalists want to maintain a reference point in the Old Testament. They desire to give justice to the original authorial intent of the Old Testament writers in accord with historical-grammatical hermeneutics (Vlach 17).
Ronald Diprose contrasts the alternative:
The logic of replacement theology required that much of the Old Testament be allegorized. Only in this way could the Church be made the subject of passages in which the nation of Israel is addressed. This led to the virtual abandonment of the Hebrew world view and concept of God and the adoption of a framework of thought which had its roots in Greek philosophy (Diprose 169-170).
Literal interpretation involves the idea that there is no allowance for interpreting a text on the basis of any subjective influence, including the meaning of metaphors or images in a non-parallel passage. In my opinion, the consistent use of literal interpretation has been modeled best by dispensationalists.
3. Dispensationalism provides a comprehensive framework for understanding all of history.
The flow of history is obvious and logical when it is expounded through the seven dispensations of traditional dispensationalism. The God Who created all things in six days will work within history to fulfill the plan He has revealed—bringing His kingdom to earth for 1,000 years as history’s culmination.
The Bible makes it clear that in the future—as in the past—history will be marked by definite events and that the significance of these events is certain and knowable. Christ said, “When these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near” (Luke 21:28, NKJV).
Above all others, dispensationalists have done well in explaining the significance of the flow of history and its signal and distinctive events. The attempt to use the system to analyze specific signs of the times is a byproduct of dispensationalism rather than its driving force.
4. Dispensationalism emphasizes the glory of God.
Though not exclusive in this regard, dispensationalists clearly proclaim that the glory of God is the purpose behind His working in history—from creation to the final judgment at the Great White Throne. With each new dispensation, God’s glory is declared in a new and fresh way, through the advance of special revelation and the additional resources which He provides, so that men might more fully reflect His glory.
In the present age, believers enjoy the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit (John 14:17) and even the very mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16)—and yet these blessings pale when compared to those which still await us (1 John 3:2).
5. Dispensationalism brings the ministry of Christ into clear focus.
If one begins with the Old Testament and works forward, it becomes clear that Israel’s Messiah came offering the Kingdom which they had expected since the days of Abraham (cf. Gen. 17:6). Bible scholar extraordinaire Alva J. McClain summarized as follows:
The Kingdom announced by our Lord and offered to the nation of Israel at His first coming was identical with the Mediatorial Kingdom of Old Testament prophecy, and will be established on earth at the second coming of the King. This…is supported by the material in both Testaments taken at its normal or face value (McClain 275-276).
On the basis of this understanding, one can fit together many passages in the gospels which would otherwise remain puzzling. The work of Christ—past and future (cf. Acts 1:6, 7)—may also be set in its complete context.
6. Dispensationalism is the fulfillment of Reformational truth.
Though he would be horrified at the thought (as Dr. Myron Houghton, my theology teacher, once said), Luther taught me dispensationalism in seed form in my Lutheran grade school religion classes. His emphasis on the distinction between Law and Grace is truly the basis for understanding the Bible dispensationally. It reveals the truth that God has dealt with mankind on the basis of different stewardship responsibilities at different times in history without providing different ways of salvation.
The charge that dispensationalism cannot be correct because of the recentness of its development is impossible to reconcile with either history or theology, as the progressive refinement of the understanding of truth during the church age demonstrates. Ultimately, I do not view dispensational theology as a betrayal of my strong Lutheran upbringing, but rather, a fulfillment of it.
Dr. Thomas Ice, executive director of the Pre-Trib Research Center, introduced this concept to me during a conversation which I had with him while in seminary. In short, he explained that dispensationalism flourished—beginning in the 19th century—as a result of the literal interpretation and verse-by-verse teaching which had been re-introduced by the forces of the Reformation. Theology is the queen of the sciences, and dispensationalism is the queen of all theologies.
7. Godly dispensational teachers have modeled this theology for me.
God has given me the indescribable privilege of receiving dispensational theology directly from some of its greatest teachers. Among them have been Dr. Rolland McCune, Dr. Charles Ryrie, Dr. Renald Showers, Dr. John Whitcomb and the late Dr. John Walvoord.
I have found that dispensationalism is not a distraction for such men, nor does it deter them from teaching “the weightier matters of the law” (Matt. 23:23, NKJV). Rather, it drives them to perfect their understanding in all areas of theology so that they might build upon the foundation offered by historic, orthodox Christianity with the surpassing glory of dispensational truth.
A new generation of “faithful men” (2 Tim. 2:2) is committed to carrying these teachings forward. Efforts such as the Pre-Trib Study Group (with its annual conferences) and Baptist Bible Seminary’s Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics evidence new energy which will continue to drive serious study and advance within dispensationalism for many years to come, should Christ tarry. By His grace and for His glory, I hope to be in the center of that movement.
Works Cited
Diprose, Ronald E. Israel and the Church: The Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology. Waynesboro, GA: Authentic Media, 2004.
McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom. Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1974.
Vlach, Michael J. Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths. Los Angeles: Theological Studies Press, 2008.
Paul J. Scharf is a graduate of Maranatha Baptist Bible College (Watertown, WI) and Faith Baptist Theological Seminary (Ankeny, IA). He is the editor of the Columbus Journal in Columbus, Wis., an associate with IMI/SOS International in Hudsonville, Mich., and a ministry assistant for Whitcomb Ministries, Inc. in Indianapolis, Ind. Scharf served as a pastor for seven years and has taught the Bible on the elementary, secondary and college levels. He is a contributor to Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth (Master Books, 2008) and has written numerous articles for Gospel Herald and The Sunday School Times. He is a member of the Pre-Trib Study Group. Paul is married to Lynnette, and the couple resides near Columbus, WI.
Charlie:
Sorry you feel Sola Scriptua (at least how I understand it) falls under the general slogan of “Slogans.” In my view that is incredibly reductionist, somewhat like using Sola as a sloganism to refer solely to the “ ‘infallible’ source of authority, not the only source.”
You understandibly want to include history apparently as an outside aid to understand doctrine, to which I have no real objection. However, my point was that even in that modified scenario, my contention is that “with a paradigm in which such historicism is hermeneutically NORMATIVE, [that methodology] is a dead end.” Do you dispute that proposition? If you do, it seems to me that Sola has been abandoned and we are back to the essential anonymity and agnosticism of the historical method, and Sola then truly becomes a slogan, but void of biblical/theological content. Sola, as well as any biblical doctrine or datum, cannot stand on some kind of independent, autonomous footing detached from all the other truths I mentioned, to say nothing of its primacy in the whole interlocking, correlative truth system of the one living and true God as revealed in the Protestant canon.
Sorry you feel Sola Scriptua (at least how I understand it) falls under the general slogan of “Slogans.” In my view that is incredibly reductionist, somewhat like using Sola as a sloganism to refer solely to the “ ‘infallible’ source of authority, not the only source.”
You understandibly want to include history apparently as an outside aid to understand doctrine, to which I have no real objection. However, my point was that even in that modified scenario, my contention is that “with a paradigm in which such historicism is hermeneutically NORMATIVE, [that methodology] is a dead end.” Do you dispute that proposition? If you do, it seems to me that Sola has been abandoned and we are back to the essential anonymity and agnosticism of the historical method, and Sola then truly becomes a slogan, but void of biblical/theological content. Sola, as well as any biblical doctrine or datum, cannot stand on some kind of independent, autonomous footing detached from all the other truths I mentioned, to say nothing of its primacy in the whole interlocking, correlative truth system of the one living and true God as revealed in the Protestant canon.
Rolland McCune
The issue is not about the normativity of history, but about history (historical theology) being the medium in which theologians work. Is theology a discipline, or is it not? I say it is. How do advancements come in any discipline? They come by people climbing upon the shoulders of those who came before, and from that vantage point offering their contribution. They do not come by people on the outside leaping into the sky by themselves.
So there are two things to consider in any discipline. First, the subject matter. In this case, it is the Bible. Second, the current body of knowledge already available about the subject matter. In this case, historical theology. New breakthroughs in physics come by physicists who know current physics theory laboring to correct, modify, add, develop, etc. They do not come by non-physicists deciding to ignore all that has been said about physics before and think of something on their own based on “common sense,” since God obviously wanted us to understand nature and wouldn’t have made it hard or require intensive study.
You see where I’m going with this. Theology is a discipline concerned with the investigation of propositional truths. There is a longstanding body of thought devoted to expounding those truths. I believe that new advancements are more likely to come from people intimately acquainted with that body of knowledge than with someone who thinks they can dismiss it. My whole point in this conversation with Aaron was not to prove that Dispensationalism is false, but to show why some people more readily accept Luther’s “innovations” than Darby/Scofield/Chafer’s. Luther was more like the trained physicist, whereas the others seemed to champion an epistemology that actually encourages jumping into the sky.
Really, all I have been trying to do is explain to Aaron the seeming inconsistency between accepting Luther and rejecting Darby. I do, though, believe that historical theology is the formal principle of systematic theology whereas the Bible is its material principle. I also find it hard to believe that one (such as Chafer) can argue that theology is “common sense” while all the while knowing that the massive weight of history is against you. How can you explain the total absence of “common sense” among every branch of Christendom over the last 1800 years? I think the early Dispensational platform would actually have been stronger by using an appeal to superior scholarship than to common sense.
So there are two things to consider in any discipline. First, the subject matter. In this case, it is the Bible. Second, the current body of knowledge already available about the subject matter. In this case, historical theology. New breakthroughs in physics come by physicists who know current physics theory laboring to correct, modify, add, develop, etc. They do not come by non-physicists deciding to ignore all that has been said about physics before and think of something on their own based on “common sense,” since God obviously wanted us to understand nature and wouldn’t have made it hard or require intensive study.
You see where I’m going with this. Theology is a discipline concerned with the investigation of propositional truths. There is a longstanding body of thought devoted to expounding those truths. I believe that new advancements are more likely to come from people intimately acquainted with that body of knowledge than with someone who thinks they can dismiss it. My whole point in this conversation with Aaron was not to prove that Dispensationalism is false, but to show why some people more readily accept Luther’s “innovations” than Darby/Scofield/Chafer’s. Luther was more like the trained physicist, whereas the others seemed to champion an epistemology that actually encourages jumping into the sky.
Really, all I have been trying to do is explain to Aaron the seeming inconsistency between accepting Luther and rejecting Darby. I do, though, believe that historical theology is the formal principle of systematic theology whereas the Bible is its material principle. I also find it hard to believe that one (such as Chafer) can argue that theology is “common sense” while all the while knowing that the massive weight of history is against you. How can you explain the total absence of “common sense” among every branch of Christendom over the last 1800 years? I think the early Dispensational platform would actually have been stronger by using an appeal to superior scholarship than to common sense.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Y’all, I’ve been finding the discussion very interesting. But I’ve got a trip to get ready for then go on, so I’m going to have to go silent.
Just wanted to explain why I’m disappearing.
As a sort of last contribution on it from me, for now…. maybe it would help to pause and review what we’ere all agreed on.
I don’t think any of us would deny that…
1. Theology is a discipline and the work of those who have gone before is important to moving sensibly forward
2. Moving forward (whether actually or only in perception) has always involved some degree of departure from the work of those who have gone before
3. For some sola scriptura is just tossed around as a slogan… but for many, it’s pretty much the foundation everything else is built on… and for these, there is no such thing as “forward” unless it is toward a fuller understanding of what is written (which presupposes that a diligent student can understand what is written without recourse to philosophers).
OK, for what I’m not sure we’re agreed on but surely should be…
1. The Reformers did depart a big way (how’s that for precision) from many of the pretty much settled conclusions (another technical term) of the discipline of theology for the several centuries that preceded them
2. They did so with varying degrees of reluctance because they were very knowledgeable of that body of work
3. They did so with great boldness once they arrived at the conclusion that the Scriptures required them to make those departures…”Here I stand I can do no other”
4. Several of dispensationalism’s systematizers did their work with generally less reverence for the discipline of theology than the Reformers
5. Of course, these men were not of the same general stature as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, et. al.
6. That (#4 & #5), in itself, does not mean they were wrong!
That’s really all I’ve been saying (except for the journey into “If the history of the discipline is so important, just when is it OK to deviate from it?” …and my answer, whenever study of the Scriptures themselves warrants that… but I have to also echo Dr McCune’s observation that there is not so much consensus in the discipline/historical theology as some seem to think… once you get past the early councils)
Just wanted to explain why I’m disappearing.
As a sort of last contribution on it from me, for now…. maybe it would help to pause and review what we’ere all agreed on.
I don’t think any of us would deny that…
1. Theology is a discipline and the work of those who have gone before is important to moving sensibly forward
2. Moving forward (whether actually or only in perception) has always involved some degree of departure from the work of those who have gone before
3. For some sola scriptura is just tossed around as a slogan… but for many, it’s pretty much the foundation everything else is built on… and for these, there is no such thing as “forward” unless it is toward a fuller understanding of what is written (which presupposes that a diligent student can understand what is written without recourse to philosophers).
OK, for what I’m not sure we’re agreed on but surely should be…
1. The Reformers did depart a big way (how’s that for precision) from many of the pretty much settled conclusions (another technical term) of the discipline of theology for the several centuries that preceded them
2. They did so with varying degrees of reluctance because they were very knowledgeable of that body of work
3. They did so with great boldness once they arrived at the conclusion that the Scriptures required them to make those departures…”Here I stand I can do no other”
4. Several of dispensationalism’s systematizers did their work with generally less reverence for the discipline of theology than the Reformers
5. Of course, these men were not of the same general stature as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, et. al.
6. That (#4 & #5), in itself, does not mean they were wrong!
That’s really all I’ve been saying (except for the journey into “If the history of the discipline is so important, just when is it OK to deviate from it?” …and my answer, whenever study of the Scriptures themselves warrants that… but I have to also echo Dr McCune’s observation that there is not so much consensus in the discipline/historical theology as some seem to think… once you get past the early councils)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]
4. Several of dispensationalism’s systematizers did their work with generally less reverence for the discipline of theology than the Reformers
5. Of course, these men were not of the same general stature as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, et. al.
Thanks Aaron for your summation!
In your list of things that you are “not sure we’re agreed on but surely should be,” I am not willing to concede as a given no. 4 and 5, as quoted above.
First of all, comparing the Reformers and the early dispensationalists is really an apples and oranges comparison, in this sense: the Reformers were really going way out on a limb - and had better have been right, as they often stated in so many words - as they were arguing about the nature of eternal salvation for the souls of millions of men and women from that day down to ours.
Dispensationalists, building on the work of the Reformation and standing on the shoulders of the Reformers (as was my point in the article), were arguing more than anything else about the nature of the church and for a future salvation for Israel — through the same gospel we enjoy today. They felt they were finally able to grasp the whole Bible and enjoy all of its sweetest fruit; they were not launching a parallel but different kind of Reformation, but telescoping out from the work of the Reformers. Again, that was my original point, and I have seen nothing from anyone that has countered what I am saying about dispensationalism — either conceptually or historically.
The stature of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin — especially Luther — in my humble opinion, had more to do with the courage they displayed and the way God used them at a particular moment in time than with their academic qualifications, intrinsic brilliance and superior abilities, though no one would deny that they were men of great ability.
They were also steeped in Roman Catholicism (not merely academically, but personally and spiritually; which, I guess, can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how important you believe historical theology to be) and each also had great personal shortcomings. (But to paraphrase an earlier post, that is an embarrassing discussion, so let’s not go there.)
Would you really have expected the Reformers — in just one generation — to go from Roman Catholicism to a pre-trib rapture and a future salvation for Israel? That seems highly unrealistic to me.
Did all truth end with them? I first began to wrestle with (internally) and then fight (externally) that concept when I was in the 8th grade.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Aaron Blumer] Y’all, I’ve been finding the discussion very interesting. But I’ve got a trip to get ready for then go on, so I’m going to have to go silent.Aaron, I would pretty much agree with what you wrote here. I would only take some issue with your first #3. I agree that doctrine is not dependent upon a person, such as a philosopher. No thinker, whether Aristotle or Kant, has a grid that will unlock the Bible. Theology and philosophy, though, are interrelated enough that what you do in one affects the other. People who have bad philosophy, or have never conscientiously articulated a philosophy, are more susceptible to error. One of my great concerns with the “common sense” movement (which is broader than Dispensationalism), is that people aren’t really avoiding philosophy, they’re just doing it poorly (that is, unconsciously). Saying “I just do theology and don’t worry about that philosophy stuff” seems to me to be the same sort of error as “I don’t do theology, I just believe the Bible.” But, I think that we’re in general agreement, and that some people have read more “historicism” into my method than is really accurate.
Just wanted to explain why I’m disappearing.
As a sort of last contribution on it from me, for now…. maybe it would help to pause and review what we’ere all agreed on.
I don’t think any of us would deny that…
1. Theology is a discipline and the work of those who have gone before is important to moving sensibly forward
2. Moving forward (whether actually or only in perception) has always involved some degree of departure from the work of those who have gone before
3. For some sola scriptura is just tossed around as a slogan… but for many, it’s pretty much the foundation everything else is built on… and for these, there is no such thing as “forward” unless it is toward a fuller understanding of what is written (which presupposes that a diligent student can understand what is written without recourse to philosophers).
OK, for what I’m not sure we’re agreed on but surely should be…
1. The Reformers did depart a big way (how’s that for precision) from many of the pretty much settled conclusions (another technical term) of the discipline of theology for the several centuries that preceded them
2. They did so with varying degrees of reluctance because they were very knowledgeable of that body of work
3. They did so with great boldness once they arrived at the conclusion that the Scriptures required them to make those departures…”Here I stand I can do no other”
4. Several of dispensationalism’s systematizers did their work with generally less reverence for the discipline of theology than the Reformers
5. Of course, these men were not of the same general stature as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, et. al.
6. That (#4 & #5), in itself, does not mean they were wrong!
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] People who have bad philosophy, or have never conscientiously articulated a philosophy, are more susceptible to error. One of my great concerns with the “common sense” movement (which is broader than Dispensationalism), is that people aren’t really avoiding philosophy, they’re just doing it poorly (that is, unconsciously). Saying “I just do theology and don’t worry about that philosophy stuff” seems to me to be the same sort of error as “I don’t do theology, I just believe the Bible.” But, I think that we’re in general agreement, and that some people have read more “historicism” into my method than is really accurate.You are protesting people reading more “historicism” into your method than is accurate, and your clarification is fair, yet you isolate a general comment by a Dispensationalist and exaggerate it to the point of claiming it is the the basis of an entire theological movement so that you can conveniently argue against its value. If you want people to fairly read your approach it stands to reason you are obligated to be a bit more fair of Chafer’s theological perspicacity. :)
“1. Dispensationalism understands the relevance of the entirety of Scripture.”
The need to examine Scripture, even the difficult passages, is very important. I agree with the need to examine and the relevance of Scripture; I disagree that Dispensationalism has an exclusive ownership of this point though. As such, I don’t see why this is a helpful point to make in why one should be a dispensationalist because others can make the exact same point. The fact that the opening article speaks of others not searching does not lead to the conclusion that ‘only’ a dispensationalist understands the relevance of the entirety of Scripture. Such a conclusion is a non-sequiter, a conclusion that does not arise from the data.
“2. Dispensationalism employs consistent literal interpretation.”
I’d have to disagree here. Dispensationalists do not employ a consistent literal interpretation. I have never heard of a dispensationalist interpret Jesus’ statement that one should forgive 70 times 7 in a literal way. I have never read a dispensationalist take literally the supposed culmination in Matthew where Jesus is “offering” the kingdom. One has to be non-literal in order to arrive at such an “offer” even existing in the chapters. Further, the opening article does not hit upon the role that systematic theology has upon what one calls literal. The Open Theist, denying the non-literal poetic genre of the Psalms, says that he is taking passages “literally” that speak toward God’s lack of knowledge. Further, “literal” has to include the various genres in which the OT and NT is written; “literal” needs to deal with the different rhetorical devices which the authorial intent includes, which may very well not be literal. Genre cannot be missed! Further, whether or not one holds to an OT, NT, or complementary priority of the testaments and the bearing this has on what one calls literal needs to be taken into account. In summary, Dispensationalism does not employ a “consistent” literal hermeneutic, and is suffers from being unable to clearly define the term “literal” in the context of the many different hermeneutical issues.
“3. Dispensationalism provides a comprehensive framework for understanding all of history.”
Much like my response to #1, dispensationalism does not have an exclusive claim on understanding history. Hence, this point can be used by other systems to support why one should be a holder to the other systems.
“4. Dispensationalism emphasizes the glory of God.”
I appreciate the fact that the author of the opening article writes that dispensationalism is not exclusive in this regard. One big misnomer is that disp theology emphasizes the glory of God, and covenant theology does not. This would be to completely straw man covenant theology. Disp is not exclusive in this category, so this point can be used as a reason for advancing another system.
“5. Dispensationalism brings the ministry of Christ into clear focus.”
Once again, this is not exclusive to disp theology. In fact, it may be debated that disp theology actually misses the relevance of Christ by missing His role as THE seed of Abraham of which those in union with Him also become inheritors of the promises. But that is an argument that I will simply set on the table to look at, but I will not try to defend it. I will leave that to others.
“6. Dispensationalism is the fulfillment of Reformational truth.”
This has already been covered in the course of the thread, so I will not add anything.
“7. Godly dispensational teachers have modeled this theology for me.”
Once again, this is not exclusive to disp theology. Hence, it becomes a moot point on why one should be a dispensationalist.
The need to examine Scripture, even the difficult passages, is very important. I agree with the need to examine and the relevance of Scripture; I disagree that Dispensationalism has an exclusive ownership of this point though. As such, I don’t see why this is a helpful point to make in why one should be a dispensationalist because others can make the exact same point. The fact that the opening article speaks of others not searching does not lead to the conclusion that ‘only’ a dispensationalist understands the relevance of the entirety of Scripture. Such a conclusion is a non-sequiter, a conclusion that does not arise from the data.
“2. Dispensationalism employs consistent literal interpretation.”
I’d have to disagree here. Dispensationalists do not employ a consistent literal interpretation. I have never heard of a dispensationalist interpret Jesus’ statement that one should forgive 70 times 7 in a literal way. I have never read a dispensationalist take literally the supposed culmination in Matthew where Jesus is “offering” the kingdom. One has to be non-literal in order to arrive at such an “offer” even existing in the chapters. Further, the opening article does not hit upon the role that systematic theology has upon what one calls literal. The Open Theist, denying the non-literal poetic genre of the Psalms, says that he is taking passages “literally” that speak toward God’s lack of knowledge. Further, “literal” has to include the various genres in which the OT and NT is written; “literal” needs to deal with the different rhetorical devices which the authorial intent includes, which may very well not be literal. Genre cannot be missed! Further, whether or not one holds to an OT, NT, or complementary priority of the testaments and the bearing this has on what one calls literal needs to be taken into account. In summary, Dispensationalism does not employ a “consistent” literal hermeneutic, and is suffers from being unable to clearly define the term “literal” in the context of the many different hermeneutical issues.
“3. Dispensationalism provides a comprehensive framework for understanding all of history.”
Much like my response to #1, dispensationalism does not have an exclusive claim on understanding history. Hence, this point can be used by other systems to support why one should be a holder to the other systems.
“4. Dispensationalism emphasizes the glory of God.”
I appreciate the fact that the author of the opening article writes that dispensationalism is not exclusive in this regard. One big misnomer is that disp theology emphasizes the glory of God, and covenant theology does not. This would be to completely straw man covenant theology. Disp is not exclusive in this category, so this point can be used as a reason for advancing another system.
“5. Dispensationalism brings the ministry of Christ into clear focus.”
Once again, this is not exclusive to disp theology. In fact, it may be debated that disp theology actually misses the relevance of Christ by missing His role as THE seed of Abraham of which those in union with Him also become inheritors of the promises. But that is an argument that I will simply set on the table to look at, but I will not try to defend it. I will leave that to others.
“6. Dispensationalism is the fulfillment of Reformational truth.”
This has already been covered in the course of the thread, so I will not add anything.
“7. Godly dispensational teachers have modeled this theology for me.”
Once again, this is not exclusive to disp theology. Hence, it becomes a moot point on why one should be a dispensationalist.
Dispensationalism appears to be a theological perspective uniquely emerging from a Bible only ism (Sola Scriptura) approach to scripture.
1. The Japhetic (European) tradition of theology was inseparably entangled with Greek philosophy with the influence of Plato, Aristotle, and others being conveyed via Plotinus and emerging in Augustine. There is agreed consensus that the Reformers, especially Calvin, were influenced by Augustine. Yet Augustine was terribly wrong on Justification, sacraments, the church, and the Kingdom. He became the primary influence that resulted in replacement of Israel and the kingdom with the blessings and ceremonies reformed and transferred to the Gentile church. This centuries old European theology needed to be purged in order for theology to become sola scriptura.
2. The Puritans brought the entanglements of European theology to the new land of north America. Their devotion and exaltation of Christ is to be appreciated. However, their attempts to bring the European concept of the church in the state initially sought to suppress any emerging theology that saw sola scriptura leading to different perspectives. The great awakenings eventually over powered the old lights and new theological ideas emerged. Subsequent events in Revivalism, emerging denominations, and a desire for Bible truth without complicated philosophical ideas. European influences waned and sola scriptura prospered.
3. Approaching the Bible with minimal influences from the flow of Gentilized European Christian history resulted in the emergence of a true sola scriptura approach that rose above old historical prejudices. The attempt to approach scripture without old influences resulted in seeing the Bible through Shemitic eyes rather than Japhetic eyes. The Hebraic nature of scripture, including the N.T., brought a better understanding of the plan of God. Jesus came as Israels Messiah. God’s intent of blessing the Gentiles comes only through Israel. Dispensationalism finally systematized theology within the unique election of God for Israel.
4. Historical theology must be studied to understand our errors and appreciate our truth. However, it must not be considered as normative for truth or as an aid to truth. The reality of history must warn us. Why do we embrace a man’s ideas yet find it constantly necessary to excuse the life style and actions of some whose ideas we embrace? It is because they are terribly flawed men who can easily teach error. This should lead us to pursue sola scriptura with passion. We certainly must learn from men who also do so, but recognize our obligation to compare their guidance with that which alone has the authority a Holy God.
5. Dispensationalism seeks to take scripture in a normal literary manner (literal, historical, grammatical). This endeavor is made by flawed men but most with a sincere effort to honor the scriptures as the sole authoritative word from God. This is the sole issue involved. To bring in academics, tradition, and history is interesting but not relevant to the final truth of scripture. Many seek to obfuscate the issues with a pseudo intellectualism 9involving philosophy and/ or history. This is not the issue here.
1. The Japhetic (European) tradition of theology was inseparably entangled with Greek philosophy with the influence of Plato, Aristotle, and others being conveyed via Plotinus and emerging in Augustine. There is agreed consensus that the Reformers, especially Calvin, were influenced by Augustine. Yet Augustine was terribly wrong on Justification, sacraments, the church, and the Kingdom. He became the primary influence that resulted in replacement of Israel and the kingdom with the blessings and ceremonies reformed and transferred to the Gentile church. This centuries old European theology needed to be purged in order for theology to become sola scriptura.
2. The Puritans brought the entanglements of European theology to the new land of north America. Their devotion and exaltation of Christ is to be appreciated. However, their attempts to bring the European concept of the church in the state initially sought to suppress any emerging theology that saw sola scriptura leading to different perspectives. The great awakenings eventually over powered the old lights and new theological ideas emerged. Subsequent events in Revivalism, emerging denominations, and a desire for Bible truth without complicated philosophical ideas. European influences waned and sola scriptura prospered.
3. Approaching the Bible with minimal influences from the flow of Gentilized European Christian history resulted in the emergence of a true sola scriptura approach that rose above old historical prejudices. The attempt to approach scripture without old influences resulted in seeing the Bible through Shemitic eyes rather than Japhetic eyes. The Hebraic nature of scripture, including the N.T., brought a better understanding of the plan of God. Jesus came as Israels Messiah. God’s intent of blessing the Gentiles comes only through Israel. Dispensationalism finally systematized theology within the unique election of God for Israel.
4. Historical theology must be studied to understand our errors and appreciate our truth. However, it must not be considered as normative for truth or as an aid to truth. The reality of history must warn us. Why do we embrace a man’s ideas yet find it constantly necessary to excuse the life style and actions of some whose ideas we embrace? It is because they are terribly flawed men who can easily teach error. This should lead us to pursue sola scriptura with passion. We certainly must learn from men who also do so, but recognize our obligation to compare their guidance with that which alone has the authority a Holy God.
5. Dispensationalism seeks to take scripture in a normal literary manner (literal, historical, grammatical). This endeavor is made by flawed men but most with a sincere effort to honor the scriptures as the sole authoritative word from God. This is the sole issue involved. To bring in academics, tradition, and history is interesting but not relevant to the final truth of scripture. Many seek to obfuscate the issues with a pseudo intellectualism 9involving philosophy and/ or history. This is not the issue here.
[Rolland McCune] RE: Aaron Blumer, “Perspicuity and Sola Scriptura”Dr. McCune (and Aaron), thank you so much for doing such a great job of putting into words what I am sure many of us have been thinking. Going down the road of “my mentor (or teacher, theologian, philosopher, school, etc.) is smarter than yours” may be appropriate in validating a theorem in math, a “new” idea in physics, or the qualifications of a carpenter, but this only can lead to a “dead end” in true biblical theology as you so aptly stated.
………………………………..
Dear Christian friends and Bible-believers, in the kindest candor I can muster, that conclusion is at least 20,000 leagues under being pathetic. And we are to accept that kind of finding in refutation of dispensationalism? But it is an honest answer, given in remarkably transparent candor—the only answer possible in that methodology for doctrinal studies. Aaron is patently kind, clear and correct, if not studiously understated: “As for those who don’t believe in sola, there is just about nowhere for them to go…. History [ironically!] is clear where that road usually leads.”
Arguing for or against dispensationalism (or any biblical teaching) on the basis of historical theology, or with a paradigm in which such historicism is hermeneutically normative to any degree, is a dead end. Nearly any doctrine, true or crackpot, can be supported by history, probably the most unreliable sources are the Fathers, along with rabbinic studies and others with even worse presuppositions.
Rolland D. McCune
If we take “sola scriptura” seriously and tie it to the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, none of us needs to feel like second class citizens in the Kingdom to those who are the “experts.” I am a dispensationalist because I believe dispensationalism best describes the way God has worked in the past and will work in the future. I at times am a bit dubious about how everything is tied up in little packages with pretty string - but I believe the general form is correct. I also find it impossible to base my theology on Covenants that are never mentioned in Scripture. So, unless you have a better (more scriptural) way to look at the Bible, I am sticking with dispensationalism.
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
Practically everything that has been said here about Dispensationalism has been illustrated through the performative elements present in the defences of Dispensationalism on this thread.
To the question of doctrinal development, the need for continuity, and the importance of tradition, and the accusation that Dispensationalists have not taken these things seriously, Dr. McCune claims that that past should have no authority, that such approaches are a “dead end,” that the Church Fathers, to whom Christians owe so much, are probably our “most unreliable” sources.
To the question of authority of the past, Dr. McCune perpetuates a dichotomy between Scripture and tradition. Great students of Scripture, like the Reformers, knew such a dichotomy, rendered absolute, was false, and that to set it up was always to really elevate the self as the final authority. To those who do not have deference and respect for tradition, they self is the final court of appeals, but they mediate their own interpretations through statements like “sola Scriptura” and “perspicuity,” when of course these function to obscure the fact that they provide no means, in themselves, for resolving interpretive differences that arise between individuals.
As W.G.T Shedd said, in defending the Westminster Confession:
The past is dishonored with positivist platitudes (e.g., “simply a chronicle of what people believed”) fit for Voltaire and the philosophes, while people remain supremely confidence in their competence to correct, or not even bother correcting, for that implies studying, those who have gone before them. Even this radically individualistic attitude is the result of community and culture, but self-consiousness of that fact would undermine the attitude, and therefore awareness of shaping influences, whether history or culture, are studiously ignored or regarded as irrelevant.
This attitude toward the past is so strikingly identical to that held by most scientists and technophiles, by critics of the humanities, that it is worth noting. The same scienticism that underlaid the hermeneutic and theological assumptions of the original Dispensationalists, the same scienticism that underlies most of the scientific establishment, the same scienticism that has long been discredited in history and philosophy, is still the defining sensibility of Dispensationalists. The past is, at best, a collection of “facts,” at worst (and more likely) a catalogue of errors which we have thankfully superceded. It can be studied for illustrative purposes, to find examplars or sermon illustrations, or to find out who was wrong when and when people started agreeing with and anticipating our own opinions. (All of this has been beautifully laid out in Isaiah Berlin’s essay on The Divorce Between the Sciences and the Humanities). But, fundamentally, it is not necessary or very valuable for understanding our selves and our own position in the world. It has, and should have, no authority. That would be a dead end.
Note the emptiness of the claims about Sola Scriptura and Perspicuity, for is there not fundamental disagreement on this very thread? And what must the Dispensationalists say about those who disagree with them? If the Bible is so clear, apart from any eccesial and historical mediation, why do we disagree? Is it any surprise that many come close to saying things like, “They’re unspiritual,” or “They’re blinded by x,” for how else can someone who holds such a position explain disagreement? Everyone else is wrong, clearly - that is the attitude that must be adopted. For my own position, I am not surprised in the least that people disagree with it. People would need to come to recognize the value of goods, like tradition, history, rootedness, hermeneutic self-awareness, that they do not currently recognize. Absence the growing valuation of such goods, it would completely absurd for me to expect others to hold my own position.
I strive to know to what and to whom I am indebted (this is, not incidentally, part of the logic of the Fifth commandment), and I strive to honor those forces and persons that have shaped me for good, and to acknowledges those that have shaped me for ill, but I don’t deny that I have been shaped, nor do I imply that, without such shaping, I can reasonably expect people to hold positions similar to mine, or that, without community, tradition, and authority, the little competence i do have as a Christian could have been cultivated. So, I do not regard Dispensationalists as blind, as unspiritual, ad fundamentally ignorant, not do I think that secretly in their hearts they are disbelievers in perspicuity or Sola Scriptura (as I suspect they often think of those who disagree with them). That is why my endeavor has been to make clear some of the fundamental forces that have shaped Dispensationalism, as well as to clarify what it means to read the Bible. That people could possibly think a position like mine is in tension much less contradiction with the Reformers’ “Sola Scriptura” shows only how little they understand that principle or the principle of ecclesia sempre reformanda (the church is always needing to be reformed).
In closing, consider again (or, perhaps for the first time) MacIntyre’s definition of tradition:
To the question of doctrinal development, the need for continuity, and the importance of tradition, and the accusation that Dispensationalists have not taken these things seriously, Dr. McCune claims that that past should have no authority, that such approaches are a “dead end,” that the Church Fathers, to whom Christians owe so much, are probably our “most unreliable” sources.
To the question of authority of the past, Dr. McCune perpetuates a dichotomy between Scripture and tradition. Great students of Scripture, like the Reformers, knew such a dichotomy, rendered absolute, was false, and that to set it up was always to really elevate the self as the final authority. To those who do not have deference and respect for tradition, they self is the final court of appeals, but they mediate their own interpretations through statements like “sola Scriptura” and “perspicuity,” when of course these function to obscure the fact that they provide no means, in themselves, for resolving interpretive differences that arise between individuals.
As W.G.T Shedd said, in defending the Westminster Confession:
[Shedd, quoted in “Deconstructing Evangelicalism,” by D.G. Hart]Claiming only to follow Scripture alone, much like the claim in the Enlightenment to follow Reason alone, no matter how well intentioned, entails the implicit claim to the final authority of the self, a claim that fits so well with the individualism of our culture, an individualism which fed and nurtued American Christianity and is pervasive among Dispensationalists, as this thread demonstrates beyond dispute.
Of course Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. But this particular way of appealing to Scripture is specious and fallacious… . This kind of appeal to Scripture is only an appeal to Scripture as the reviser understands it. “Scripture” properly means the interpretation of Scripture, that is, the contents of Scripture as reached by human investigation and exegesis. Creeds, like commentaries, are Scripture studied and explained, and not the mere abstract and unexplained book as it lies on the counter of the Bible House. The infallible Word of God is expounded by the fallible mind of man, and hence the variety of expositions embodied in the denominational creeds. But every interpreter claims to have understood the Scripture correctly, and, consequently, claims that his creed is Scriptural …
The past is dishonored with positivist platitudes (e.g., “simply a chronicle of what people believed”) fit for Voltaire and the philosophes, while people remain supremely confidence in their competence to correct, or not even bother correcting, for that implies studying, those who have gone before them. Even this radically individualistic attitude is the result of community and culture, but self-consiousness of that fact would undermine the attitude, and therefore awareness of shaping influences, whether history or culture, are studiously ignored or regarded as irrelevant.
This attitude toward the past is so strikingly identical to that held by most scientists and technophiles, by critics of the humanities, that it is worth noting. The same scienticism that underlaid the hermeneutic and theological assumptions of the original Dispensationalists, the same scienticism that underlies most of the scientific establishment, the same scienticism that has long been discredited in history and philosophy, is still the defining sensibility of Dispensationalists. The past is, at best, a collection of “facts,” at worst (and more likely) a catalogue of errors which we have thankfully superceded. It can be studied for illustrative purposes, to find examplars or sermon illustrations, or to find out who was wrong when and when people started agreeing with and anticipating our own opinions. (All of this has been beautifully laid out in Isaiah Berlin’s essay on The Divorce Between the Sciences and the Humanities). But, fundamentally, it is not necessary or very valuable for understanding our selves and our own position in the world. It has, and should have, no authority. That would be a dead end.
Note the emptiness of the claims about Sola Scriptura and Perspicuity, for is there not fundamental disagreement on this very thread? And what must the Dispensationalists say about those who disagree with them? If the Bible is so clear, apart from any eccesial and historical mediation, why do we disagree? Is it any surprise that many come close to saying things like, “They’re unspiritual,” or “They’re blinded by x,” for how else can someone who holds such a position explain disagreement? Everyone else is wrong, clearly - that is the attitude that must be adopted. For my own position, I am not surprised in the least that people disagree with it. People would need to come to recognize the value of goods, like tradition, history, rootedness, hermeneutic self-awareness, that they do not currently recognize. Absence the growing valuation of such goods, it would completely absurd for me to expect others to hold my own position.
I strive to know to what and to whom I am indebted (this is, not incidentally, part of the logic of the Fifth commandment), and I strive to honor those forces and persons that have shaped me for good, and to acknowledges those that have shaped me for ill, but I don’t deny that I have been shaped, nor do I imply that, without such shaping, I can reasonably expect people to hold positions similar to mine, or that, without community, tradition, and authority, the little competence i do have as a Christian could have been cultivated. So, I do not regard Dispensationalists as blind, as unspiritual, ad fundamentally ignorant, not do I think that secretly in their hearts they are disbelievers in perspicuity or Sola Scriptura (as I suspect they often think of those who disagree with them). That is why my endeavor has been to make clear some of the fundamental forces that have shaped Dispensationalism, as well as to clarify what it means to read the Bible. That people could possibly think a position like mine is in tension much less contradiction with the Reformers’ “Sola Scriptura” shows only how little they understand that principle or the principle of ecclesia sempre reformanda (the church is always needing to be reformed).
In closing, consider again (or, perhaps for the first time) MacIntyre’s definition of tradition:
[Alasdair MacIntye, in After Virtue]
… it is central to the conception of such a tradition that the past is never something merely to be discarded, but rather that the present is intelligible only as a commentary upon and response to the past in which the past, if necessary and if possible, is corrected and transcended, yet corrected and transcended in a way that leaves the present open to being in turn corrected and transcended by some yet more adequate future point of view.
Thanks Caleb! We obviously disagree, but you made your points clearly, concisely, understandably and positively. Speaking as a first-time author on SI, I would like to see more posts like yours that help us all “sharpen one another” and can help me to learn and grow as a writer.
Some of the posts here remind me of the proverbial man who got up in front of the Rotary Club and said, “Dear friends, I have come today to speak about ‘Life, Science, History and the Seven Great World Religions.’” :)
Either my article must have touched a nerve, or else some people just needed to get some things off their chests.
Some of the posts here remind me of the proverbial man who got up in front of the Rotary Club and said, “Dear friends, I have come today to speak about ‘Life, Science, History and the Seven Great World Religions.’” :)
Either my article must have touched a nerve, or else some people just needed to get some things off their chests.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Paul J. Scharf] Thanks Caleb! We obviously disagree, but you made your points clearly, concisely, understandably and positively. Speaking as a first-time author on SI, I would like to see more posts like yours that help us all “sharpen one another” and can help me to learn and grow as a writer.One positive that I just remembered, about a particular disp teacher, is the following. I do greatly appreciate the following through of the Abrahamic covenant throughout the OT. I enjoyed seeing the various passages and then moving to the Davidic covenant, which enlarges the Abrahamic covenant, I enjoyed seeing this covenant as Christ comes on the scene. When you read the passage about another prophet like Moses who will be coming on the scene, and then you read the Davidic covenant and how one will sit on the throne forever (yes, the term “forever” is taken by some as “indefinitely” and I’m not sure where to stand on that point yet), and then you read of Christ. In this sense, I do appreciate what you have already stated about the focus on Christ in dispensationalism. I did not state that I agreed with some of your comment on the portion of your opening article, so I’m doing that now. My disagreement my be exactly “how” that fulfillment takes place, and I’m still ironing that one out.
Some of the posts here remind me of the proverbial man who got up in front of the Rotary Club and said, “Dear friends, I have come today to speak about ‘Life, Science, History and the Seven Great World Religions.’” :)
Either my article must have touched a nerve, or else some people just needed to get some things off their chests.
We do disagree, or at least I’m more questioning of the disp paradigm, but I do wish to be charitable about it. I appreciate the charity in your return response. Thanks!
Regarding some of the dispositions toward “tradition” and claims of “sola scriptura” as reflected in Joseph’s comment:
Claiming only to follow Scripture alone, much like the claim in the Enlightenment to follow Reason alone, no matter how well intentioned, entails the implicit claim to the final authority of the self, a claim that fits so well with the individualism of our culture, an individualism which fed and nurtued American Christianity and is pervasive among Dispensationalists, as this thread demonstrates beyond dispute.In 1945 Concordia House Publishing (a Lutheran publishing house) published a two-volume anthology of doctrinal essays edited by Theodore Laetsch, D.D. entitled The Abiding Word and in one essay on the use of God’s Word A.F. Miller writes:
The reading of the Scriptures also strengthens the conviction that our Lutheran doctrine is founded on and agrees fully with the Bible. We Lutherans have always made the claim that our doctrine is true and pure. Rome makes the same claim, so do the sectarians. When you ask them, How do you know that yours is the true faith? the Catholic will answer with an appeal to tradition, and the sectarian to reason. And the Lutherans? The Bible is the only source of my faith; all our doctrines are in agreement with the Scriptures, and therefore right and unadulterated.Lutherans may not be Dispensationalists but they, though birthed in the midst of tradition and matured during the rise of the Renaissance seem to, in spite of all these advantages, share a form of theological myopia with Dispensationalists.
Thanks Caleb!
Alex, how true! Good point. Reminds me of the old days, and hearing: “Every Lutheran doctrine is a Bible doctrine, and every Bible doctrine is a Lutheran doctrine.”
As I have been pondering this discussion on historical theology in light of Dr. McCune’s words, I was reminded also of what I heard D. James Kennedy say once in a sermon. Speaking of what a professor once told an unsuspecting young man in his class, Kennedy quoted the teacher as saying, “Young man, the scholars say…everything!”
Alex, how true! Good point. Reminds me of the old days, and hearing: “Every Lutheran doctrine is a Bible doctrine, and every Bible doctrine is a Lutheran doctrine.”
As I have been pondering this discussion on historical theology in light of Dr. McCune’s words, I was reminded also of what I heard D. James Kennedy say once in a sermon. Speaking of what a professor once told an unsuspecting young man in his class, Kennedy quoted the teacher as saying, “Young man, the scholars say…everything!”
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Joseph, I have been moved by your valiant uphill struggle to get across what I think are some very valid and important concerns. Though I haven’t followed an academic trajectory in life, they do strike a chord with me. It is very true that the more you learn, the more you realise you have yet to learn. My personal bias is that I have lived most of my life in Europe, and for ten years attended a “traditional” (covenant) Baptist church in Oxford (though this particular church is a mere 150 years old). Half the 25 year-olds had earned doctorates and research posts, and yet they took the time to apply their hearts and minds to the Word of God and regularly practiced expository preaching in our pulpit.
The sense and weight of time here can be palpable. Locals have used dykes to push the sea around for 500 years. In some ways the sense of time can be like a security blanket. Just the other day I went to a working windmill in the next village; over the door is a keystone that reads “1725”. It is not a museum, it is someone’s livlihood. I bought a large sack of homemade, 10-grain wholemeal flour and went home to make some bread using a real lekker recipe with honey and linseed. We anticipated a slice of that bread for the whole 3.5 hours it was baking.
The sense and weight of time here can be palpable. Locals have used dykes to push the sea around for 500 years. In some ways the sense of time can be like a security blanket. Just the other day I went to a working windmill in the next village; over the door is a keystone that reads “1725”. It is not a museum, it is someone’s livlihood. I bought a large sack of homemade, 10-grain wholemeal flour and went home to make some bread using a real lekker recipe with honey and linseed. We anticipated a slice of that bread for the whole 3.5 hours it was baking.
Ripley,
Thank you very much for you comment. It is heartening to know I have had some positive impact. I did spend a considerable time writing my (especially the last two) responses, and I’m grateful to know they were somewhat beneficial.
Thank you very much for you comment. It is heartening to know I have had some positive impact. I did spend a considerable time writing my (especially the last two) responses, and I’m grateful to know they were somewhat beneficial.
Clarity and Clarification For All Concerned
I too am enjoying the give and take on our continuing “dialogue” (if you please) on historical theology/historicism and its place in the hermeneutics of Scripture and doctrinal development which has come about as an offshoot (legitimatly so, in my view) of Paul’s original SI affirmation of dispensationalism. I want to clarify my view a little better as well as gain more clarity of what to me is a problematic view. I will try to develop a problem or two and then perhaps list as pithily as possible some other concerns.
1. I do not believe, and have neither affirmed nor implied, that historical study is of no usefulness or should have no input in doctrinal development. And, I know of no one nor have read I any dispensationalist who would say or imply that assertion in context. That is not (and has never been) a hermeneutical norm for dispensationalists. I am not guaranteeing that it never has nor will occur, but it would have to be in some exceptional, isolated situation. His/her peers would immediately reject it roundly. I speak for myself as one who has been ransacking dispensational literature for 50 years or so, which of course does not give the force of Sola Scriptura to it. I concur with Robert D. Culver that the “source” of theological studies is confined to the Scriptures but that the “resources,” of course, go beyond them (Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical, p. xv).
2. To me the real issue has to do with authority. By that I mean a final and absolute authority, for which no greater authorization can be given; i.e., it is indubitable. Also it is transendental; i.e., nothing is intelligible or successfully explainable or accountable without it. It is a necessary, obligatory ingredient (what I mean by “normative”) in theological studies, exegetical or historical. That authority for me is the Scriptures (more technically, of the Protestant canon), even for discerning the final authority of Scripture itself. (Don’t bother me just yet with the objection of circular reasoning.) I hold there is a theology of doing theology itself as well as historical theological studies. I do not discern that in the other position; indeed, it was stated that history is just the “medium” that has nothing to do with “normativity” at all (Charlie, #52). But if it is considered in the least necessary, if not primarily so, without which historical studies become directed willy-nilly by “slogans” (ibid.), it looks to me like it is very much authoritative/normative in the sense that it has, or at least shares, some real binding necessity, divine or otherwise, for the discipline (and I can’t see it as in any way divine). In that sense I do believe that the “past should have no authority” (Joseph, # 60).
3. It is said that Sola Scriptura means the “infallible” source of truth, not the “only” source (Charlie, #49). Assuming this means truth-in-general, it is true; not all truth is found in the Bible. But we’re handling divine truth in theological studies, propositional truths that have come from God Himself by the miracles of revelation and inspiration, a category of knowledge whose rubrics go well beyond the purview of those of mathematics, physical science, pharmacy, or even common, profane history (where I would put historical theology), in my understanding.
4. The formal and material principles in the configuration of doing systematic theology are not clear to me as to how they impact or change the authority issue in the present discussion (Charlie, # 52). Are they two sides of some kind of authority, or do they share authority in binary fashion, or what? Or is there no governing authority that referees historical theological studies? If not, then the formal and material principles come very close to becoming a slogan, it seems to me.
5. The “common sense” issue (Charlie, # 49, 52, 55) seems extremely irrelevant to me, and far too sweeping in its use against dispensationalism (per Alex, #56). It has some overtones of John Gerstener’s Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, a hopelessly anachronistic attempt at refuting dispensationalism. He’s still stuck in the 1830s and some of the ideas in the early development of futurist premillennialism, in the break with centuries-old historicist premillennialism, the ecclesial teachings of the Plymouth Brethren, et al. I personally don’t see common sense as providing a viable, load-bearing point in the development of the infrastructure of dispensationalism; it was never a norm in that sense.
6. The issue of “literal interpretation” is also very outdated, in my view. Dispensationalists have answered that one multiplied times over.
7. As far as the contributions of the church Fathers to systematic theology or biblical doctrine, there are some indeed “to whom Christians owe so much” (Joseph, # 60). But on the whole, I view the literature of the Fathers as a roaring bee hive of opinion, some good, much of it bad. Even the Didache (AD 120 or so?) was confused about the recipients and mode of water baptism. So, if everyone who goes fishing in the Fathers (for affirmation of a theological assertion or of a doctrine, however strange or convoluted) is guaranteed to catch something to use, then the pond is much too large. If the Fathers (and other historical sources) as a whole can virtually teach everything, then they actually teach nothing. Which brings up the subject of authority again. Are historians required to bring the Fathers, et al., to terms with a greater authority? If so, what or who is it? And why?
8. In similar fashion, if it is true (and it is) that philosophy and theology interact with each other in an impasse, what or who is the arbiter? Both may be wrong but both cannot be right. Who or what decides, and why? Or is it ultimately insoluable by historical theological rubrics alone?
9. I really don’t get the dictum that Sola Scriptura, perspicuity and such are an appeal to the final authority of one’s self—a negative, unsavory notion attributed to dispensationalism (Joseph, #60).
10. The quote from MacIntyre (Joseph, # 60) seems in itself to make some sense, as long as he is not making the past some sort of norm, in this case, of interpretating the Scripture’s doctrines. Shedd is not making history (and he wrote a worthy 2 volumes of A History of Christian Theology) a necessary touchstone of a doctrine’s truthfulness. I read somewhere that Phillip Schaff opined or wrote a reasonable quote: “The present is the fruit of the past and the germ of the future.” I don’t think he was speaking in terms of German rationalism, although I could be wrong and would not go to the wall for it.
I too am enjoying the give and take on our continuing “dialogue” (if you please) on historical theology/historicism and its place in the hermeneutics of Scripture and doctrinal development which has come about as an offshoot (legitimatly so, in my view) of Paul’s original SI affirmation of dispensationalism. I want to clarify my view a little better as well as gain more clarity of what to me is a problematic view. I will try to develop a problem or two and then perhaps list as pithily as possible some other concerns.
1. I do not believe, and have neither affirmed nor implied, that historical study is of no usefulness or should have no input in doctrinal development. And, I know of no one nor have read I any dispensationalist who would say or imply that assertion in context. That is not (and has never been) a hermeneutical norm for dispensationalists. I am not guaranteeing that it never has nor will occur, but it would have to be in some exceptional, isolated situation. His/her peers would immediately reject it roundly. I speak for myself as one who has been ransacking dispensational literature for 50 years or so, which of course does not give the force of Sola Scriptura to it. I concur with Robert D. Culver that the “source” of theological studies is confined to the Scriptures but that the “resources,” of course, go beyond them (Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical, p. xv).
2. To me the real issue has to do with authority. By that I mean a final and absolute authority, for which no greater authorization can be given; i.e., it is indubitable. Also it is transendental; i.e., nothing is intelligible or successfully explainable or accountable without it. It is a necessary, obligatory ingredient (what I mean by “normative”) in theological studies, exegetical or historical. That authority for me is the Scriptures (more technically, of the Protestant canon), even for discerning the final authority of Scripture itself. (Don’t bother me just yet with the objection of circular reasoning.) I hold there is a theology of doing theology itself as well as historical theological studies. I do not discern that in the other position; indeed, it was stated that history is just the “medium” that has nothing to do with “normativity” at all (Charlie, #52). But if it is considered in the least necessary, if not primarily so, without which historical studies become directed willy-nilly by “slogans” (ibid.), it looks to me like it is very much authoritative/normative in the sense that it has, or at least shares, some real binding necessity, divine or otherwise, for the discipline (and I can’t see it as in any way divine). In that sense I do believe that the “past should have no authority” (Joseph, # 60).
3. It is said that Sola Scriptura means the “infallible” source of truth, not the “only” source (Charlie, #49). Assuming this means truth-in-general, it is true; not all truth is found in the Bible. But we’re handling divine truth in theological studies, propositional truths that have come from God Himself by the miracles of revelation and inspiration, a category of knowledge whose rubrics go well beyond the purview of those of mathematics, physical science, pharmacy, or even common, profane history (where I would put historical theology), in my understanding.
4. The formal and material principles in the configuration of doing systematic theology are not clear to me as to how they impact or change the authority issue in the present discussion (Charlie, # 52). Are they two sides of some kind of authority, or do they share authority in binary fashion, or what? Or is there no governing authority that referees historical theological studies? If not, then the formal and material principles come very close to becoming a slogan, it seems to me.
5. The “common sense” issue (Charlie, # 49, 52, 55) seems extremely irrelevant to me, and far too sweeping in its use against dispensationalism (per Alex, #56). It has some overtones of John Gerstener’s Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, a hopelessly anachronistic attempt at refuting dispensationalism. He’s still stuck in the 1830s and some of the ideas in the early development of futurist premillennialism, in the break with centuries-old historicist premillennialism, the ecclesial teachings of the Plymouth Brethren, et al. I personally don’t see common sense as providing a viable, load-bearing point in the development of the infrastructure of dispensationalism; it was never a norm in that sense.
6. The issue of “literal interpretation” is also very outdated, in my view. Dispensationalists have answered that one multiplied times over.
7. As far as the contributions of the church Fathers to systematic theology or biblical doctrine, there are some indeed “to whom Christians owe so much” (Joseph, # 60). But on the whole, I view the literature of the Fathers as a roaring bee hive of opinion, some good, much of it bad. Even the Didache (AD 120 or so?) was confused about the recipients and mode of water baptism. So, if everyone who goes fishing in the Fathers (for affirmation of a theological assertion or of a doctrine, however strange or convoluted) is guaranteed to catch something to use, then the pond is much too large. If the Fathers (and other historical sources) as a whole can virtually teach everything, then they actually teach nothing. Which brings up the subject of authority again. Are historians required to bring the Fathers, et al., to terms with a greater authority? If so, what or who is it? And why?
8. In similar fashion, if it is true (and it is) that philosophy and theology interact with each other in an impasse, what or who is the arbiter? Both may be wrong but both cannot be right. Who or what decides, and why? Or is it ultimately insoluable by historical theological rubrics alone?
9. I really don’t get the dictum that Sola Scriptura, perspicuity and such are an appeal to the final authority of one’s self—a negative, unsavory notion attributed to dispensationalism (Joseph, #60).
10. The quote from MacIntyre (Joseph, # 60) seems in itself to make some sense, as long as he is not making the past some sort of norm, in this case, of interpretating the Scripture’s doctrines. Shedd is not making history (and he wrote a worthy 2 volumes of A History of Christian Theology) a necessary touchstone of a doctrine’s truthfulness. I read somewhere that Phillip Schaff opined or wrote a reasonable quote: “The present is the fruit of the past and the germ of the future.” I don’t think he was speaking in terms of German rationalism, although I could be wrong and would not go to the wall for it.
Rolland McCune
Discussion